Distant Doonhamer Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 ICU admissions per week across Scotland have been lower in 2020 compared with the same period in 2019Lots of ICU/critical care admissions are related to planned major surgery or those who suffer unexpected complications of planned surgery. Given the decrease in such surgery (I know this is part of the point you are making) it’s not a big surprise that overall numbers are down. From memory there were around 230 Covid patients in ICU at the peak. There should of course have been more non Covid work being done in the last few months. It’s dreadful that this hasn’t happened. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Andy Burnham's speech. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Fair play to Burnham as he had definitely got a valid point across. See how Boris attempts to outflank him in half an hour or so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Do we know the twitter account or website that this chairman mao guy's using to spout his stuff?There's no way he's making this up himself so what's he getting it? And how ridiculous a source is it?(or are some if these points genuine) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Well Andy Burnham has lost, and lost badly then. Offered £60m, wanted £65m at which point talks broke off and he now gets £22m. Ouch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Well Andy Burnham has lost, and lost badly then. Offered £60m, wanted £65m at which point talks broke off and he now gets £22m. Ouch. Thats factually incorrect. The 22 million is the guaranteed support for enforcement and testing etc. That does not take into account business support. Every tier 3 affected person is in effect subsidised by £8 for the above. Hence 22 million for greater manchester 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Well Andy Burnham has lost, and lost badly then. Offered £60m, wanted £65m at which point talks broke off and he now gets £22m. Ouch. I don’t think that’s the full amount of support. That said it shows the personalities involved when a deal can breakdown over a 10 day period over what in the great scheme of things is a paltry £5m. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Burnham should have changed his name to Dido Harding plenty cash for Dido...none for Manchester 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Wigan 345 Manchester 253Shit defences 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, superbigal said: Thats factually incorrect. The 22 million is the guaranteed support for enforcement and testing etc. That does not take into account business support. Every tier 3 affected person is in effect subsidised by £8 for the above. Hence 22 million for greater manchester What is going to be the full amount of support? Presumably not what he was hoping for, at any rate. 3 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said: Yes - if this is the case it reflects really poorly on him, and not the government of the United Kingdom seemingly quibbling over £5m then going down to £22m out of sheer vindictiveness. It doesn't reflect well on the government. This is a battle Burnham was always losing, however. He presides over a number of the top 20 worst impacted areas in England and has gone about this whilst seemingly forgetting forgetting this, at one stage demanding the whole of the England go into the same measurss. It's not a fight he was ever winning and a politician of his experience really ought to see this coming - everyone knows what the Johnson Government is like. He was in a weak position and played his hand badly. It's no surprise it's ended like this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Burnham was clearly never going to get support for the lower paid when other tier 3 areas had already folded to Richeys plans. He had nothing to lose.NS sounds like she realises nothing else is coming 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 1 hour ago, pandarilla said: Do we know the twitter account or website that this chairman mao guy's using to spout his stuff? There's no way he's making this up himself so what's he getting it? And how ridiculous a source is it? (or are some if these points genuine) I've asked him to post his sources before, and he refuses to. Every time I've managed to find them it's either some loony antivaxxer site or he's snipped a few lines or a graph totally out of context. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Distant Doonhamer said: I don’t think that’s the full amount of support. That said it shows the personalities involved when a deal can breakdown over a 10 day period over what in the great scheme of things is a paltry £5m. It's not a 'paltry' £5m. He needed £90m and had already conceded down to £65m. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Just now, Mr. Alli said: It's not a 'paltry' £5m. He needed £90m and had already conceded down to £65m. I get that but it's my understanding is that they conceded down to £65m and were offered £60. Hence I said £5m. Maybe I've missed something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Just now, Distant Doonhamer said: it's my understanding is that they conceded down to £65m and were offered £60. Chancing b*****ds!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 It's not the only restriction they'll need to comp!y with but the rule about serving a meal will keep most of the pubs I went to in Manchester open. I could string lunch out over a few hours then move on for my dinner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orfc Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Chairman Mao said: It's a bit of a sham bar chart given only 1.29% of humanity lives south of 30deg south latitude. (see 4th pic down on this link) http://www.statsmapsnpix.com/2018/12/one-degree-of-population.html And most of the epidemic occurred in January in the northern hemisphere!??!!? O rly? Edited October 20, 2020 by orfc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 Yeah Andy Burnham has came out looking bad today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 It is of course entirely possible that both parties come out of something looking bad. The Government for being what it is and Burnham for having achieved absolutely nothing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendan Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 6 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said: Latest from WHO is the IFR is probably > 0.2% in most locations: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf ...Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September, 2020, far more than the approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower. An order of magnitude down from the 2% figure that was generally being mentioned in the media on mortality back in February or so based on what was reported to be happening in Wuhan. If we take 0.2% that means around 500 cases per death. If there have been 2610 deaths after testing positive so far then it would be reasonable to expect there to have been over 1.3 million people in Scotland who have been infected at some point. I don't think the 0.2% would apply in Scotland as we have a much older age profile than the global average and also much higher rates of obesity/heart disease etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.